US v. Robert Hairston

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to expedite decision [999576996-2]. Originating case numbers: 5:99-cr-00011-RLV-3, 5:12-cv-00021-RLV. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999650405]. Mailed to: Appellant. [15-6582]

Appeal: 15-6582

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/31/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6582

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT EARL HAIRSTON, a/k/a Showtime,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge.
(5:99-cr-00011-RLV-3; 5:12-cv-00021RLV)

Submitted:

August 25, 2015

Decided:

August 31, 2015

Before GREGORY and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Earl Hairston, Appellant Pro Se.
Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6582

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/31/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Robert Earl Hairston seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. *

The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a

certificate

(2012).

of

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B)

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent

“a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

U.S.

that

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

is

473,

484

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
ruling

is

debatable,

and

that

the

motion

states

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

a

debatable

Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Hairston has not made the requisite showing.

*

Accordingly, we

We previously reversed the district court’s order
dismissing
Hairston’s
§ 2255
motion
as
an
unauthorized,
successive motion and remanded for further proceedings.
United
States v. Hairston, 754 F.3d 258, 258-59, 262 (4th Cir. 2014).

2

Appeal: 15-6582

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/31/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

deny a certificate of appealability, deny Hairston’s motion to
expedite decision, and dismiss the appeal.
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with
contentions
this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3